JUDGMENT V. GOPALA GOWDA, C.J. - These two writ petitions have been filed by the self same petitioners. Petitioner NO.2 in both the writ petitions is the borrower from the Orissa State Financial Corporation (hereinafter called in short as 'Corporation' and petitioner NO.1 stood as guarantor for the borrowed amount. They have filed the writ petitions seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari and mandamus and such other direction as this Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case against the Corporation in respect of quashing of sale of the property mortgaged with opposite party NO.1 as collateral security and direction to the Corporation for accepting one time settlement of 2005 or 2007 urging various facts and legal contention. 2. The relevant brief facts are stated for the purpose of appreciating factual and rival legal contention with a view to find out as to whether the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs as prayed in these writ petition. The bus bearing Regn. NO. OSX 3383 was allowed to be transferred from the original borrower Sri Ramesh Chandra Kar in favour of one Asish Kumar Kar as the former could not repay the loan amount of Rs.2,90,000/ - advanced by the Corporation for purchase of the said bus. The said, Asish Kumar Kar went on repaying the loan in instalments till 1993 and then he defaulted in paying the instalment amount towards the debt due to the Corporation. On account of such default made on- the part of said Asish Kumar Kar, the bus was put to auction by the Corporation. Petitioner NO.2 purchased the said bus at Rs.70,000/- only with approval of the Corporation and agreed to take over the entire liability of the said Asish Kumar Kar, the original debtor for the said transaction. Petitioner NO.1 along with her son Sri Pradipta Kumar Mohapatra and daughter Pravamayee Mohapatra stood as guarantors in favour of petitioner NO.2 and as such, their most valuable and only landed property with dwelling house standing thereon was mortgaged with the Corporation. 3. Pursuant to the request made by petitioner NO.2 for settlement of his loan account, the Corporation vide its letter dated 6.1.2004 agreed to settle the loan account under OTS-2003 Scheme, but the same came to be rejected by the Corporation on technical ground even after accepting Rs.56,400/- from him. 3. Pursuant to the request made by petitioner NO.2 for settlement of his loan account, the Corporation vide its letter dated 6.1.2004 agreed to settle the loan account under OTS-2003 Scheme, but the same came to be rejected by the Corporation on technical ground even after accepting Rs.56,400/- from him. On 28.9.2005, petitioner NO.2 represented before the concerned authority seeking settlement of the loan account under OTS-2004 Scheme. The Corporation accepted the OTS proposal made by the petitioner NO.2 at Rs.6,27,400/- for full and final settlement of the loan account. Petitioner NO.2 preferred a representation to the Corporation (Annexure-6 in W P. (c) NO.7220 of 2007) seeking for revision/reconsideration of the offered amount of Rs. 6,27,400/- as the same was too exorbitant and the letter vide Annexure-5 in WP.(C) NO.7220 of 2007 did not reflect the true accounts of the receipts and payments made in relation to the loan account. The Corporation arbitrarily rejected the representation (Annexure-6) and insisted for payment of the entire settlement amount of Rs.6,27,400/- on or before 15.9.2006 failing which the OTS offer would automatically stand cancelled, vide letter Annexure-7 in W.P.(C) NO.7220 of 2007, Petitioner NO.2 received the aforesaid Annexure-7 to the W.P.(C) No,7220 of 2007 from the Corporation and thereafter repeatedly ,visited the office of the Corporation seeking reconsideration of letters under Annexures 5 and 7, but the same did not yield any result. Thereafter, the Corporation issued public notice dated 14.11.2006 (Annexure-8 in W.P.(C) No,7220 of 2007) for sale of the mortgaged property in auction fixing 28.11.2006 as the date of final bidding to be dropped in sealed cover in the tender box and 29.11,2006 as the date of auction. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that no tenders were dropped in the tender box on 28.11 2006 and on 29.11.2006, petitioner NO.2 deposited Rs.30,000/- with the Corporation in the form of bank draft stating that he was ready and willing to pay the settled amount by March, 2007. But the Corporation claimed to have settled the properties with one stranger by name Mr. But the Corporation claimed to have settled the properties with one stranger by name Mr. Tushar Ranjan Mishra (opposite party NO.3 in W.P.(C) NO.7220 of 2007) at Rs.13,20,000/-, who did not bid for such auction on 28.11.2006 and had not deposited the required EMD amount on 28.11.2006 and also did not deposit any further amount with the Corporation despite the fact that some bank drafts were shown to have been accepted by the Corporation from opposite party NO.3-auction purchaser. But in fact the same were never encased and the amounts were never credited to the Bank account of the Corporation from the account of opposite party, NO.3. The entire exercise was only a gimmick to hoodwink the public and the Courts of law to achieve unlawful gains in gross violation of the procedure in confirmation of the sale of the mortgaged property which has caused great prejudice to the petitioner NO.1 and her family members and petitioner NO.2. 5. It is further stated that the petitioner NO.2 got an interim order in his favour in W.P.(C) NO.15944 of 2006 which was filed by him challenging the illegal/arbitrary process of auction of the mortgaged property and the consequential settlement of the property in favour of opposite party NO.3. Upon direction issued from this Court, petitioner NO.1 also deposited Rs.2,50,000/- with the Corporation. 6. It is stated that petitioner NO.2 received a copy of communication claimed to have been made between the Corporation and opposite party NO.3 on 2.12.2006 (Annexure-12 in W.P.(C) NO.8405 of 2007). From Hie very nature of the above said letter under Annexure-12, it appears that the same is highly illegal and has no legal consequence. Moreover, the same being a lis-pendens document, was too inconsequential to the case of the petitioner No.2 vide W.P.(C) No.15944 of 2006. The receipt vide Annexure-13 in W.P.(C) No.8405 of 2007 showing deposit of certain Account Payee Cheques worth Rs.9,90,000/- by the purchaser drawn on U. Co. Moreover, the same being a lis-pendens document, was too inconsequential to the case of the petitioner No.2 vide W.P.(C) No.15944 of 2006. The receipt vide Annexure-13 in W.P.(C) No.8405 of 2007 showing deposit of certain Account Payee Cheques worth Rs.9,90,000/- by the purchaser drawn on U. Co. Bank, College Square Branch, Cuttack does not suffice that the said amount was ever credited to the account of the Corporation standing in UTI Bank, Cuttack, before 12.00 noon on 6.12.2006 and as such, the claim of the Corporation that before passing of the interim order by this Court in favour of petitioner No.2 on aforesaid date, the sale of the property in question was confirmed and possession of the property already handed over to opposite party No.3 is only a myth and far from reality. It is also impossible to have such credit of Rs.9,90,000/-to the account of Corporation, when admittedly the cheques were of U. Co. Bank, the same could not have been credited in the same day to an account remaining in the UTI Bank. Therefore, the Court disposed of W.P.(C) No.15944 of 2006 on 12.4.2007 without deciding the inter se rights and contentions. This Court disposed of the writ petition with observation that in case any flaw in the sale of mortgaged property is found and the OSFC is of the opinion that confirmation of sale is liable to be recalled, then opportunity shall be given to the petitioners to repay the amount due against him vide Annexure-14 in W.P.(C) No.8405 of 2007. The order dated 12.4.2007 came to be modified at the instance of petitioner No.2 vide order dated 3.5.2007 allowing the petitioner No.2 to point out the flaws in the process of confirmation of sale of the mortgaged property which shall be taken into consideration. Petitioner No.2 made an exhaustive representation pointing out various flaws in the process of confirmation of sale. Although so many flaws in conducting sale had been pointed out by petitioner No.2 in his representation, the same were not properly considered by the Corporation. The Corporation did not comply with the direction issued by this Court on 12.4.2007 and 3.5.2007 in the aforesaid writ petition. Therefore, the present writ petitions have been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari and mandamus. 7. The Corporation did not comply with the direction issued by this Court on 12.4.2007 and 3.5.2007 in the aforesaid writ petition. Therefore, the present writ petitions have been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari and mandamus. 7. The Corporation issued letter to the then tenants of petitioner No.1 requiring them to vacate the pren1ises under Annexure-17 series in W.P.(C) No.8405 of 2007. In fact, petitioner No.1 the guarantor represented to the Corporation requesting it to accept the balance amount from the settled amount under the OTS Scheme at Rs.6,27,400/- after adjusting Rs.2,50,000/- already paid by petitioner No.2 to close the loan account. 8. The correctness of the letter under Annexure-17 series was challenged by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.7220 of 2007 during the pendency of the representation made under Annexure-16 by the petitioner No.2 pursuant to the order dated 12.4.2007 passed by this Court in the W.P.(C) No.15944 of 2006. Pursuant to order dated 12.6.2007 passed in W.P.(C) No.7220 of 2007 petitioner No.1 deposited Rs.4,00,000/- with the Corporation and obtained order of status quo with regard to the taking over of physical possession of the properties. 9. The Corporation arbitrarily rejected the representation of the petitioner No.2 without assigning any reason and refunded the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- deposited with the Corporation pursuant to the direction of this Court. It is stated by the petitioners that amount of Rs.4,00,000/ - deposited by the first petitioner with the Corporation in compliance with the order of this Court dated 12.6.2007 passed in W.P.(C) No.7220 of 2007 for which she obtained receipts has been returned to her on 18.7.2007 without obtaining any orders from this Court. Therefore, the cheque has not been encashed by petitioner No.1 and the same amount is still with the Corporation. 10. The writ petitions are opposed by the Corporation and opposite party No.3 by filing Statement of Counters inter alia traversing the petition averments and opposing the prayers made in the above writ petitions contending that the petitioners are not entitled for any reliefs as prayed in these petitions as they have not complied with the direction and conditions of the agreement although the borrower has been given sufficient and adequate opportunity by this Court to settle the loan account. In fact, the application filed by the petitioner No.2 for grant of one time settlement under OTS-2004, was accepted and petitioner No.2 was directed to settle the account for Rs.6,27,400/-. The same was not paid, but on the other hand, the same was sought to be modified by taking untenable stand ,without taking any steps for paying the dues to the Corporation towards 'the loan account is the contention urged on behalf of the Corporation. Therefore, it is urged that the prayer for revision/modification of the one time settlement made by the petitioner No.2 is totally untenable and the same has not been availed by the petitioners. Hence, it is contended that the Corporation was left with no other alternative than to proceed with the sale of the property in public auction. That has been done by' the Corporation by inviting tenders to be dropped in the Tender Box on 28.11.2006 and 29.11.2006. The Corporation claimed that they have settled the property with opposite party No.3 at Rs.13,20,000/- after negotiation as there was no other bidder. He has paid the amount on 9.12.2006 and the sale of the property has been confirmed and he has been put into possession of the property in question. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for the reliefs. The same has been sought to be justified in similar lines by the purchaser. 11. With reference to the above said rival and legal contentions, this Court is required to answer the following points. (a) Whether the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for quashing of the sale of the mortgaged property belonging to the petitioner No.1 and other family members, for recovery of the loan amount? (b) Whether the petitioner No.2 is entitled for the benefit of payment of one time settlement accepted at Rs.6,27,400/towards the loan amount with opposite party No.1 after adjustment of Rs.2,50,000/- and four lakhs which has been deposited with the Corporation on 18.12.2006 and 6.7.2007 by the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 respectively? (c) Whether the petitioners are entitled to get back their property and close the loan account of the petitioner No.2 ? (d) What order? 12. (c) Whether the petitioners are entitled to get back their property and close the loan account of the petitioner No.2 ? (d) What order? 12. The above said points are required to be answered in favour of the petitioners for the following reasons:- It is an undisputed fact that the property mortgaged in favour of the Corporation by the first petitioner, her son and daughter is a collateral security for the amount borrowed by petitioner No.2. The said property is leased out to the tenants is an undisputed fact. Vide Annexure-E/2 to the counter affidavit the Corporation has addressed a letter to the Asst. Controller, Legal Metrology, Dhenkanal for vacation of premises and to pay the house rent to the Corporation up to 5.12.2006 and thereafter to pay the house rent to the auction purchaser Sri Tusar Ranjan Mishra. In fact, the said fact is further reiterated by opposite party No.3, Sri Tusar Ranjan Mishra by addressing a letter to Smt. Jabarani Majhi by way of a notice to vacate and deliver the vacant possession to him under Annexure-14 series in P.(C) No.7220 of Corporation under Section 29 of the SFC Act which was given as collateral security by petitioner No.1 and her family members for the loan amount borrowed by the petitioner No.2 and selling it in public auction by inviting tenders to be held on 28.11.2006/29.11.2006 is not legally permissible in view of Sections 30, 31 and 32 of the SFC Act, 1951. 13. 13. Section 31 of the SFCs Act deals with special provisions for enforcement of claims by the Financial Corporation-(1) Where an industrial concern, in breach of any agreement, makes any default in repayment of any loan or advance or any instalment thereof or in meeting its obligations in relation to any guarantee given to the Corporation or otherwise fails to comply with the terms of its agreement with the Financial Corporation or where the Financial Corporation requires an industrial concern to make immediate repayment of any loan or advance under Section 30 and the industrial concern fails to make such repayment, then without prejudice to the provisions of Section 29 of this Act and Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, any officer of the Financial Corporation, generally or specially authorized by the Board in this behalf, may apply to the District Judge within the limits of whose jurisdiction the industrial concern carries on the whole or a substantial part of its business for one or more of the following reliefs, namely :- (a) for an order for the sale of property pledged, mortgaged, hypothecated or assigned to the Financial Corporation as security for the loan or advance; or (aa) for enforcing the liability of any surety; or (b) for transferring the management of the industrial concern to the Financial Corporation; or (c) for an ad interim injunction restraining the industrial concern from transferring or removing its machinery or plant or equipment from the premises of the industrial concern without the permission of the Board, where such removal of apprehended. (2) An application under Sub-section (1) shall state the nature and extent of the liability of the industrial concern to the Financial Corporation, the ground on which it is made and such other particulars as may be prescribed. 14. Section 32 deals with the procedure of District Judge in respect of application under Section 31. (2) An application under Sub-section (1) shall state the nature and extent of the liability of the industrial concern to the Financial Corporation, the ground on which it is made and such other particulars as may be prescribed. 14. Section 32 deals with the procedure of District Judge in respect of application under Section 31. Sub-section (1) provides that when the application is for the reliefs mentioned in clauses (a) and (c) of Subsection (1) of Section 31, the District Judge shall pass an ad interim order attaching the security, or so much of the property of the industrial concern as would on being sold realize in his estimate an amount equivalent in value to the outstanding liability of the industrial concern to the Financial Corporation, together with the costs of the proceedings taken under Section 31, with or without an ad interim injunction restraining the industrial concern from transferring or removing its machinery, plant or equipment. (Emphasis laid by the Court). 15. On filing such application, the procedure contemplated under Sub-section (3) of Section 32 should be followed by the District Judge by issuing notice under Sub-section (4) of Section 32 to the industrial concern or to the owner of the security attached accompanied by copies of the order, the application and the evidence, if any recorded by him calling upon it or him to show cause on a date to be specified in the notice as to why the ad interim order of attachment should not be made absolute or the ad interim order of injunction confirmed. If no cause is shown as provided under Sub-section (5) of Section 32, the District Judge shall forthwith make the ad interim order absolute and direct the sale of the attached property. As per Sub-section (6), if cause is shown, the District Judge shall proceed to investigate the claim of the Financial Corporation in accordance with the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. The said procedure has not been followed by the Corporation in the instant case for sale of the mortgaged property in favour of the Corporation for recovery of the amount borrowed by petitioner No.2. The said procedure has not been followed by the Corporation in the instant case for sale of the mortgaged property in favour of the Corporation for recovery of the amount borrowed by petitioner No.2. Therefore, the property which was brought for sale on 28.11.2006 and 29.11.2006 by the Corporation is bad in law and further the sale has not been notified in the two newspapers one in the vernacular and the other in English which have got wide circulation by giving wide publicity inviting applications for the same. Therefore, bringing the mortgaged property for sale and selling the same in favour of opposite party No.3 by the Corporation is bad in law as there was no other bidders available. The Corporation should have been more vigilant while proceeding for sale of the property which was mortgaged by the petitioner No.1 and her family members with it as co-lateral security and should not have taken hasty decision in selling the property in favour of opposite party No.3 by negotiating with him at Rs.13,20,000/- and further confirming the same in his favour is also bad in law. In this regard, the petitioner has rightly pointed out that sale of the property is highly arbitrary and illegal having regard to the fact that the writ petition was pending before this Court and further the opposite party No.3 did not bid for such auction, He has not deposited the required EMD amount in compliance with the condition of pubic auction sale notice. He also did not deposit any further amount of the sale consideration with the Corporation. Though some bank drafts were shown to have been accepted by the Corporation from the opp. party No.3, but in fact the same were never encashed and the amounts were never credited from the account of opposite party No.3 to the account of the Corporation as on the date of the interim order passed by this Court on 6.12.2006 in W.P.(C) No.15944 of 2006. The said drafts issued in favour of the Corporation could not have been encashed as on 6.12.2006 at 12 noon and credited to the account of the payee. Therefore, the consideration of the sale property was never credited to the account of the Corporation standing in UTI Bank, Cuttack before 12.00 noon on 6.12.2006. The said drafts issued in favour of the Corporation could not have been encashed as on 6.12.2006 at 12 noon and credited to the account of the payee. Therefore, the consideration of the sale property was never credited to the account of the Corporation standing in UTI Bank, Cuttack before 12.00 noon on 6.12.2006. Therefore, the interim order passed by this Court on 6.12.2006 under Annexure-11 directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding the property should have been maintained by the Corporation. By the time status quo order was communicated to the Corporation, confirmation of the sale of the property was made in haste, the same could not have been made by the Corporation in favour of opp. party in the absence of the sale consideration amount being credited to its account at UTI Bank at Cuttack from the U. Co. Bank. Therefore, the sale of the property and confirmation of •the same are bad in law. Hence, the first point is required to be answered against the Corporation and the purchaser. In this regard it is worthwhile to refer to the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Financial Corporation v. Vincent Paul and another., re-ported in (2011) 4 SCC 171 wherein the Apex Court with reference to the exercise of power by the State Financial Corporation under Section 29 of SFCs Act to bring the defaulter's property, taking over possession and sale of properties in the absence of specific rules or guidelines, the Supreme Court issued certain guidelines to be followed by the State Financial Corporations till such rules or guidelines are formulated by the State. In the case in hand, no such rules or guidelines has been framed by the Corporation. Therefore, the observation and guidelines laid down in the said case at paragraph-12 with all fours are applicable to the fact situation of the present case. In fact, it is necessary to mention herein those guidelines which read thus:- "(i) The decision intention to bring the property for sale shall be published by way of advertisement in two leading newspapers, one in vernacular language having sufficient circulation in that locality. In fact, it is necessary to mention herein those guidelines which read thus:- "(i) The decision intention to bring the property for sale shall be published by way of advertisement in two leading newspapers, one in vernacular language having sufficient circulation in that locality. (ii) Before conducting sale of immovable property, the authority concerned shall obtain, valuation of the property from an approved valuer and in consultation with the secured creditor, fix the reserve price of the property and may sell the whole or any part of such immovable secured asset by way of the following methods; (a) by obtaining quotations from the persons dealing with similar secured assets or otherwise interested in buying such assets; or (b) by inviting tenders from the public; or (c) by holding public auction; or (d) by private treaty. Among the above modes inviting tenders from the public or holding public auction is the best method for disposal of the properties belonging to the State. (iii) The authority concerned shall serve to the borrower a notice of 30 days for sale of immovable secured assets. (iv) A highest bidder in public auction cannot have a right to get the property or any privilege, unless the authority confirms the auction-sale, being fully satisfied that the property has fetched the appropriate price and there has been no collusion between the bidders. . (v) In the matter of sale of public property, the dominant consideration is to secure the best price for the property to be sold. This can be achieved only when there is maximum public' participation in the process of sale and everybody has an opportunity of making an offer. It becomes a legal obligation on the part of the authority that property be sold in such a manner that it may fetch the best price. (vi) The essential ingredients of sale are correct valuation report and fixing the reserve price. In case proper valuation has not been made and the reserve price is fixed taking into consideration, the inaccurate valuation report, the intending buyers may not' come forward treating the property as not worth purchase by them. (vii) Reserve price means the price with which the public auction starts and the auction-bidders are not permitted to give bids below the said price i.e. the minimum bid at auction. (vii) Reserve price means the price with which the public auction starts and the auction-bidders are not permitted to give bids below the said price i.e. the minimum bid at auction. (viii) The, debtor should be given a reasonable opportunity in regard to the valuation of the property sought to be sold, in absence thereof the sale would suffer from material irregularity where the debtor suffers substantial injury by the sale." (Emphasis laid by this Court) None of the said guidelines have been followed by the Corporation in bringing the property for sale and selling the same in public auction. Apart from the said decision, it is also necessary to extract the relevant observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka State financial Corporation v. N. Narasimahaiah, reported in AIR 2008 SC 1797 . "17. The provisions of Section 128 of the Contract Act must also be kept in mind. It is only by reason thereof, subject of course to the contract by the parties thereto, the liability of a surety is made coextensive with the liability of the principal debtor. 42. Interpretation of a statute would not depend upon a contingency. It has to be interpreted on its own. It is a trite law that the Court would ordinarily take recourse to the golden rule of literal interpretation. It is not a case where we are dealing with a defect in the legislative drafting. We cannot presume any. In a case where a Court has to weigh between a right of recovery and protection of a right, it would also lean in favour of the person who is going to be deprived there from. xxx xxx." 16. For the reasons stated as hereunder, the point Nos.(b) and (c) are answered together. It is needless to mention here that the answer to the above points is required to be given against the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and in favour of the petitioners for the following reasons. xxx xxx." 16. For the reasons stated as hereunder, the point Nos.(b) and (c) are answered together. It is needless to mention here that the answer to the above points is required to be given against the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and in favour of the petitioners for the following reasons. W.P.(C) No.15944 of 2006 challenging the sale notice dated 14.11.2006 was filed on 4.12.2006 and was taken, up on 6.12.2006, status quo as on that date was directed to be maintained by the parties, but by the time the order was communicated the sale had been confirmed by the Corporation and possession was alleged to have been handed over on 6.12.2006 itself at 12 noon to the purchaser by the Corporation, Subsequently, the writ petition was disposed of on 12.4.2007. The said order passed in the writ petition 12.4.2007 was modified on 3.5.2007 stating that in case any flaw is found in sale of the property and irregularity of sale is pointed out by the purchaser and the OSFC is of the opinion that confirmation of sale is liable to be rejected on some ground, in that case opportunity shall be given to the petitioner No.2 to repay the amount due from him. The same shall also be taken into consideration, if the decision has not been taken so far by the Corporation. Accordingly, detailed representation vide Annexure-16 dated 3.5.2007 in W.P.(C) No.8405 of 2007 was submitted by the petitioner No.2, but the same has not been considered by the Corporation though it has been pointed out in detail that the sale of the mortgaged property by the Corporation is in contravention of law and the sale could not have been confirmed by it when status quo order was passed by the High Court on 6.12.2006 and an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- had been deposited by the petitioner No.2 out of the amount due and further an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was deposited by the petitioner No.1 wherein she has given representation stating that one time settlement at Rs.6,27,400/- may be directed to be settled adjusting Rs.2,50,000/- in addition to Rs.4,00,000/- and petitioner No.2 may be permitted to pay the interest from 17.5.2007 till the date of payment on the settled amount. The same has not been considered by the Corporation. The deposit of Rs.4,00,000/- made by the petitioner No.1 was refunded on 18.7.2007. The same has not been considered by the Corporation. The deposit of Rs.4,00,000/- made by the petitioner No.1 was refunded on 18.7.2007. Though the A/c payee cheque was received by the petitioner from the Corporation, the same has not been encashed by the petitioner No.1. Therefore, the said amount is still lying with the Corporation. The OTS-2004 has been invoked by petitioner No.2 and the said application was considered and the Corporation has granted relief to him in respect of the settlement amount. The petitioners are seeking direction to permit them to settle the same by paying interest from the date of due of OTS amount under the OTS scheme. The Corporation has introduced the OTS policy of the State Government with the object to see that the public money is recovered from the debtors on such terms and conditions stipulated in the scheme as they have not repaid debt due to the Corporation. The said policy has been introduced with a view to recover the principal amount which has been given to the industrialists and other entrepreneurs with interest stipulated in the OTS Schemes periodically issued by the State Government towards the loan amount due to the Corporation and such request made by the principal debtor has been considered by the Corporation and relief has been granted in his favour. Therefore, the policy of the State Government for one time settlement was invoked by petitioner No.2 and in fact, in the case on hand, such prayer had been accepted. Since the petitioner No.2 had requested to revise or modify the OTS amount taking into consideration the amount already paid by him, the remaining amount due on the basis of the OTS-200.4 should have been notified to the petitioners for settlement. If the said request was not acceptable to the Corporation, representation should have been rejected and direction should have been issued to pay the one time settlement amount granted in favour of the petitioner No.2. The stand taken by the Corporation that due to .non-availing of the OTS Scheme by petitioner No.2 the settlement offered to him has been automatically cancelled is not tenable in law as it frustrates the scheme itself and cannot be accepted. Further, the petitioner, Nos.1 and 2 have paid the amount of Rs.6,50,000/- to the Corporation during pendency of the proceedings before this Court pursuant to the direction of the. Further, the petitioner, Nos.1 and 2 have paid the amount of Rs.6,50,000/- to the Corporation during pendency of the proceedings before this Court pursuant to the direction of the. Court, requesting the Corporation to accept the one time settlement already granted in favour of petitioner No.2-borrower. Therefore, it would be just, proper and reasonable for this Court having regard to the fact that the sale of the mortgaged property is in contravention of Sections 31 and 32 of the SFCs Act and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases to hold that the sale of the property in favour of opposite party No.3 without following the mandatory procedure in selling the mortgaged property has deprived the petitioner No.1 and her family members of valuable constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and deprived the livelihood of the petitioner No.1 and her family members as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition and accordingly, we quash the letters dated 14,5.2007 and 17.5,2007 vide Annexure-14 series in W.P.(C) No,7220 of 2007 and direct the Corporation to accept the one time settlement which has already been settled in favour of petitioner No.2. If the OTS-2004 is not in existence, then the OTS-2007 may be accepted for payment of rate of interest upon the OTS amount granted and due under OTS 2004 adjusting the amount which has already been deposited by the petitioners towards the One time settlement. The same may be notified to the petitioners by calling upon them to settle the interest amount payable on the OTS amount offered to the petitioner No.2. Accordingly, the auction of the mortgaged property made in favour of opposite party No.3 is hereby quashed, the alleged possession of the mortgaged property said to have been delivered to the purchaser opp. Party No.3 is restored to the petitioner No.1, her son and daughter. As the property is in physical possession of tenants, we hold that no vacant possession of the mortgaged property was taken over by the Corporation from the tenants and sold in public auction and handed over to the purchaser. Party No.3 is restored to the petitioner No.1, her son and daughter. As the property is in physical possession of tenants, we hold that no vacant possession of the mortgaged property was taken over by the Corporation from the tenants and sold in public auction and handed over to the purchaser. If for any reason the purchaser is in possession of the mortgaged property sold in public auction, the Corporation should see that the possession of the same is re-delivered to the petitioner No.1 and if any amount is earned or recovered the same may be accounted for and adjusted towards the interest payable by petitioner No.2 on the OTS amount, who in turn he shall pay the same to petitioner No.1. The Corporation shall refund the sale consideration to the purchaser. 17. Both the writ petitions are accordingly allowed in the above terms and directions to the Corporation and purchaser by answering the point No.(d). Rule issued. I agree. Petition allowed.